PDA

View Full Version : Finally, SNPs that define and split the I2a-Dinaric clade



lgmayka
04-24-2013, 03:30 PM
For many years--and despite enormous sums spent on WTYs etc.--the I2a-Dinaric clade common in Central-Eastern Europe has been very resistant to SNP definition and partition. Not a single SNP was found to split the clade, and the only SNP to define the clade was L147, which occurs in multiple other haplogroups and hence is not sufficiently "unique" for the FTDNA haplotree.

But finally, Geno 2.0 results have identified two SNPs that split Dinaric, and three more that define it. All five are now available for order from FTDNA.

CTS10228 and CTS5966 were ancestral in one south-central Polish Dinaric, but derived in about seven other Dinarics across Central-Eastern Europe.

CTS10936, CTS11768, and CTS4002 were derived in all eight Dinarics, but ancestral in the nearest related clade (Disles).

The one Dinaric that tested negative for CTS10228 and CTS5966 has ordered Y-DNA67, but no marker results have arrived yet.

mkobulni
05-28-2013, 03:34 PM
My father took the Geno 2 test and tested CTS10228+ and CTS5966+. I imported his results into FTDNA. Paternal line from Pinsk, Belarus. Paternal line most likely originated in Warsaw, Poland. My father also tested PF3195+. So far, he is the only one to test PF3195+.

We are I-M423-Dinaric North (I2a2)

Rathna
05-28-2013, 04:15 PM
So far, he is the only one to test PF3195+.

If this SNP has been found in Sardinians of the Paolo Francalacci stock, probably there is at least another person who gets it, unless the Sardinian belongs to a different haplogroup. But Sardinia has the highest percentage of I-M26 and probably other I subclades.

von Schulze
12-17-2014, 01:44 AM
Salutations all! My FTDNA kit is 292855 and my results for SNP Z16971 came back positive. Should I consider the Big Y or order the 64 marker test? My surname is Schulze and our earliest known male ancestor was born in Braunschweig in the early 1800's. My Y results have been a bit unusual for central Germany I imagine. Thank you for your time.

lgmayka
12-17-2014, 07:47 PM
My FTDNA kit is 292855 and my results for SNP Z16971 came back positive. Should I consider the Big Y or order the 64 marker test? My surname is Schulze and our earliest known male ancestor was born in Braunschweig in the early 1800's. My Y results have been a bit unusual for central Germany I imagine.
Use a $100-off coupon to order the Big Y for $425. Your entry may add new structure to the haplotree (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3548/):
- You might split the Z16971 level, by testing negative for Y5595 or Y5596
- You might form a new sub-branch under Z16971, by sharing a SNP with YF01658, YF01914, or YF02012

George
05-17-2015, 09:31 PM
Is it worthwhile for an I-10228,5966 derived to take the recommended P61 and V19 tests on FTDNA? What information would this offer?

lgmayka
05-17-2015, 11:24 PM
Is it worthwhile for an I-10228,5966 derived to take the recommended P61 and V19 tests on FTDNA?
No. As mentioned in this post (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2014-04/1398451210), both are extremely rare. You would do much better to choose one of these alternatives:
- Order the Big Y test the next time it goes on discount sale
- Order an I-CTS10228 SNP Panel if/when one is offered by either FTDNA or Yseq (I have specifically requested one from Yseq, but have not yet received a response--here are the SNP Panels currently available from Yseq (http://www.yseq.net/index.php?cPath=25))
- Order the S17250 SNP test from either FTDNA or Yseq (or Y4460 or Z17855 if you have a specific reason to think you belong to one of those subclades instead).

See YFull's haplotree for I-CTS10228 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/).

George
05-19-2015, 01:19 PM
No. As mentioned in this post (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I/2014-04/1398451210), both are extremely rare. You would do much better to choose one of these alternatives:
- Order the Big Y test the next time it goes on discount sale
- Order an I-CTS10228 SNP Panel if/when one is offered by either FTDNA or Yseq (I have specifically requested one from Yseq, but have not yet received a response--here are the SNP Panels currently available from Yseq (http://www.yseq.net/index.php?cPath=25))
- Order the S17250 SNP test from either FTDNA or Yseq (or Y4460 or Z17855 if you have a specific reason to think you belong to one of those subclades instead).

See YFull's haplotree for I-CTS10228 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/).

Thank you again for the advice. I've started by ordering the S17250 SNP. What would ancestral or derived indicate?

lgmayka
05-19-2015, 07:03 PM
I've started by ordering the S17250 SNP. What would ancestral or derived indicate?
You can scroll through the S17250+ examples yourself in the I2a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults). I-S17250 is widely spread geographically.

George
05-21-2015, 03:19 PM
You can scroll through the S17250+ examples yourself in the I2a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults). I-S17250 is widely spread geographically.

I have a more general question (plea actually). I've been browsing about Anthrogenica and notice that a number of significant European haplogroups have been and are being extensively discussed (esp. R1a and R1b but others too). I haven't found much on the origin and especially on the history of CTS 10228. Is there a thread which touches on this and which I've missed? If 10228 is an offshoot of I, formed about 3,600 BCE would its history be similar to that of other I2's in connection with the farming in-migrations and then the Indo-European ones? I.e. it would have been "picked up" and "integrated" etc.? I remember reading some posts a couple of years ago by an analyst called Verenich (on a now defunct website) who claimed that the "big bang" of 10228 (it had a different name then) came relatively late, and was associated with the historical Slavic expansions. What then would have been its prior history? Any info would be appreciated.

eastara
05-22-2015, 12:06 AM
You can find more information on the Rootsweb Haplogroup I mailing list, but it still deals more with I1 than I2.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index/Y-DNA-HAPLOGROUP-I

There is also a blog about I2a, where the latest discoveries are reported:
http://i2aproject.blogspot.com/

You can read the latest by Vadim Verenich here, however in Russian:
http://www.academia.edu/10265561/%D0%90%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D 1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0 %BC%D1%8B_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0% B8%D1%8F_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D1% 8B%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%B 4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3% D0%BE_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D 0%B0_%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D1 %83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D1%8B_I2a

lgmayka
05-22-2015, 08:23 PM
I remember reading some posts a couple of years ago by an analyst called Verenich (on a now defunct website) who claimed that the "big bang" of 10228 (it had a different name then) came relatively late, and was associated with the historical Slavic expansions. What then would have been its prior history?
Take a look at YFull's haplotree for I-Y3111 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/), which is YFull's name for I-CTS10228. The TMRCA of the clade as a whole is 2300 ybp; but the largest subclade, I-Y3548, began to expand only 1900 years ago. The pattern of branches and dates is really quite similar to that of R-L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/), which has a similar geographic extent. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these two clades, at least, participated in the Slavic expansion. It is notable that a singleton lineage (YF01476, that's me) survived in southeastern Poland.

For earlier history of the clade, we need to look at YFull's haplotree for I-L621 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-L621/). Notice that almost 5000 years of survival passed from the formation date (11200 ybp) to the TMRCA (6600 ybp). Our tree has one surviving lineage from 4600 B.C. His modern ancestry is from the British Isles, but the I2a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults) shows another family at that same phylogenetic level with Southwest German ancestry. At 5600 ybp we see two more offshoots, one British and one Polish. We have no knowledge of any further offshoots until the more general expansion began 2300 years ago.

Of course, YFull's haplotree is essentially just a snapshot of full-Y testing so far. Further testing may shift the pattern somewhat.

EDIT: People often ask, Why is the frequency of I-CTS10228 highest in Croatia and Bosnia, if it didn't originate there? The most logical answer IMHO is a founder effect. The Croatian people of today reportedly descend primarily from so-called White Croatians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Croatia) who migrated across the Carpathian Mountains and into Dalmatia. Interestingly, an American government publication from 1910 (the Dictionary of Races or Peoples) (https://archive.org/stream/dictionaryofrace00unitrich#page/n57/mode/2up) specifically equates Bielochrovat (White Croatian) with Krakowiak (inhabitant of the Krakˇw area).

George
05-23-2015, 12:38 PM
Take a look at YFull's haplotree for I-Y3111 (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y3111/), which is YFull's name for I-CTS10228. The TMRCA of the clade as a whole is 2300 ybp; but the largest subclade, I-Y3548, began to expand only 1900 years ago. The pattern of branches and dates is really quite similar to that of R-L1029 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-L1029/), which has a similar geographic extent. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these two clades, at least, participated in the Slavic expansion. It is notable that a singleton lineage (YF01476, that's me) survived in southeastern Poland.


A few clarifications.

Is the Lithuanian R1a the same as this R-L1029 or is it something different? Does I-Y3111 also exist there?
This is in connection with an odd statement made by Verenich in the final sentence of his paper cited above by Eastara. If I've understood it, he seems to say that the Slavic identity emerged as a result of the stratification of R1a upon I2, and the latter is presented as non-Indo-European.

Jean M
05-23-2015, 01:42 PM
he seems to say that the Slavic identity emerged as a result of the stratification of R1a upon I2, and the latter is presented as non-Indo-European.

Google translate (with slight fix):


early Slavic community (which is determined by the linguistic and archaeological, not genetic traits) was quite heterogeneous and included, along with the typical "Slav" haplogroup R1a1-Z283 (mainly suclades R1a1-M458 and R1a1-Z280), and subclades other haplogroups, in particular, and I2a1b2a1. In this case, the early Slavs were formed by "layering╗ R1a-Z280 and / or R1a-M458 on I2a1b2a1.

As he says, the Slavic identity is a linguistic and cultural one. But he sees its history reflected genetically in a core mixture of haplogroups, with R1a1-Z283 reflecting the IE language input, layered upon a pre-IE substrate, reflected in I2a1b2a1.

Explanation: Y-DNA I2 was present in Mesolithic Europe. Then some I2 men were absorbed into farming communities, when farming entered Europe. Then some I2 men were absorbed into IE-speaking communities in the Copper Age. See ancient DNA tables: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml

George
05-23-2015, 01:57 PM
Yes. That's what I thought. I2 was initially integrated into pre-IE farming cultures, and afterwards IEuropeanized along with the original farmers. What I didn't quite grasp is the contention that it was a still non-IE I2 which "deflected" the already Baltic R1a to create Slavdom. I rather thought the process was between various groups which had already been Indo-European or Indo-Europeanized. And I also don't see much solid evidence of any kind for the process to have been very advanced before the first centuries of the CE.

Jean M
05-23-2015, 02:18 PM
If 10228 is an offshoot of I, formed about 3,600 BCE would its history be similar to that of other I2's in connection with the farming in-migrations and then the Indo-European ones? I.e. it would have been "picked up" and "integrated" etc.?

Exactly. I used to have a page online about Y-DNA I, but I took it down because I didn't have time to keep it updated with the flood of new data. But a few notes might help:

I2a1 (P37.2) - Found in a hunter-gatherer who lived at Loschbour, Luxembourg c. 6220-5990 BC.
.I2a1b (M423) is rare today, though it sired flourishing subclades. It has been found in a hunter-gatherer who lived in Sweden c. 5898-5531 BC.
..I2a1b1 (L161.1/S185) - Found in an early farmer who lived at Els Trocs in Spain c. 5310-5206 BC.
..I2a1b2 (L621/S392) appears today in Scotland and Ireland. This group has been labelled Disles by Ken Nordvedt.
...I2a1b2a (CTS10936) is strongly correlated with the distribution of the Slavic languages, particularly South Slavic. Its TMRCA would give it time to burgeon among the Proto-Slavic farmers on the Middle Dnieper, before the spread of Slavic. Prior to the discovery of SNPs defining this subclade, it was labelled by Ken Nordvedt as I2a-Dinaric.
....I2a1b2a1 (CTS5966, CTS10228, L147.2) Your subclade.

Jean M
05-23-2015, 02:28 PM
What I didn't quite grasp is the contention that it was a still non-IE I2 which "deflected" the already Baltic R1a to create Slavdom.

Not sure I understand that either. The standard view is that there was a Proto-Balto-Slavic homeland around the Middle Dnieper in the Copper Age, from which groups broke away early to create the Fatyanovo Culture and eventually to settle on the Baltic, the end result of which was the Baltic family of languages. The rump remaining around the Middle Dnieper developed Proto-Slavic. I suppose that if the Y-DNA I2 component of the Middle Dnieper culture was derived from local farmers, then they would be less likely to want to wander off northwards into the forests than the R1a steppe pastoralist component, so the people who ended up as Baltic-speakers would be mainly R1a plus whatever haplogroups they integrated with. ??

lgmayka
05-24-2015, 11:28 PM
Is the Lithuanian R1a the same as this R-L1029 or is it something different? Does I-Y3111 also exist there?

Lithuanian R1a is highly varied, somewhat evenly spread across a large number of clades; but some R-L1029 is indeed present. In the I2a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults), I see a few--but only a few--surnames that are native Lithuanian.

George
06-06-2015, 01:05 PM
You can scroll through the S17250+ examples yourself in the I2a Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?section=yresults). I-S17250 is widely spread geographically.

The FTDNA test came back very quickly (more than a month before the initially announced date). It seems I am confirmed as I-S17250-
The Yseq pannel test is on its way. I guess I'll wait to see what I get there re I-Z17855 before bothering with I-Y4460.

George
07-12-2015, 02:31 PM
As advised I have now taken the Yseq M-423 panel test as well as a couple of single SNP FTDNA tests (S17250, Y4660). The results are all in. Would it still be worthwhile for me to take the BigY test, when available at a discount?

lgmayka
07-12-2015, 03:02 PM
Would it still be worthwhile for me to take the BigY test, when available at a discount?
It would still have considerable value to you:
- It would determine whether you share any (previously) unshared SNPs with YF02238 or YF03145, the currently listed I-Y4460* men (http://yfull.com/tree/I-Y4460*/).
- It would make your own unshared SNPs known to YFull, so that if anyone in the future comes along who shares one of these SNPs, YFull will know to define a new subclade for the two of you.

The question is whether this value is worth the Big Y's price. You will have to decide whether to:
- Wait for a discount or coupon
- Wait until next year, when the regular price may drop to the previous discount price (based on a hint from FTDNA's CEO)